1.

Definition of Administrative Law The body of law that governs the administration and regulation of government agencies ( Federal and State ). Created by Congress ( or the state legislature ) it encompasses the procedure under which these agencies operate as well as external constraints upon them. Administartive law is considered a branch of public law and is often referred to as regulatory law.

2. Doctrine of delegation of powers

The Delegation doctrine is a principle limiting Congress's ability to transfer its legislative power to another governmental branch, especially the executive branch. This is based on the separation-of-powers concept. It says that the power to declare whether or not there shall be a law, to determine the general policy to be achieved by the law, and to fix the limits within the limits within which the law shall operate is vested by the constitution in the legislature and it shall not be delegated. Therefore any statute conferring excessive legislative power is invalid because it is unconstitutional to delegate powers. Delegation is permitted only if Congress prescribes clear and adequate standards to guide an executive agency in making the policy. All states whose constitutions contain a separation of powers doctrine have adopted some version of the delegation doctrine, which permits the legislature to delegate the administration of the law, to non legislative entities, such as administrative agencies. Thus, the delegation doctrine allows the legislature to focus on the fundamentals of a law leaving to the agencies the task of filling in the gaps by promulgating rules to administer the law. However, if legislation does not provide adequate standards for the agency charged with the task of filling in the legislative gaps, courts can invalidate the legislation.
3. Sources of administrative law

Constitution The Constitution is the creator of various several administrative bodies and agencies. It gives a brief details about the mechanism and the administrative powers granted to various authorities. Acts and Statutes Acts and Statutes passed by legislature are important sources of administrative law because they elaborately detail the powers, functions and modes of control of several administrative bodies.

Ordinances, Notifications, Circulars etc. Ordinances are issued by the President (at Union / Federal level) and Governor (at State level) and are valid for a particular period of time. These ordinances give additional powers to administrators in order to meet urgent needs. Administrative directions, notifications and circulars provide additional powers by a higher authority to a lower authority. In some cases, they control the powers. Judicial decisions Judicial decisions or judge-made law have been responsible for laying down several new principles related to administrative actions. They increased the accountability of administrative actions and acted as an anchor between the notifications, circulars etc. to be linked and complied directly or indirectly with the constitutional or statutory provisions. 4. Definition of administration
Administration is the interpretation and implementation of the policy set by an organization characterized by control and It can be appointed by the courts, the holder of the assets of a business or a company. 5. Definition of administrative agency

An official governmental body empowered with the authority to direct and supervise the implementation of particular legislative acts. In addition to agency, such governmental bodies may be called commissions, corporations, boards, departments, or divisions. 6. Distinction between, department and bureau ( United residents of Dominican Hills, inc. Vs commission on the settlement of land problems, 353 SCRA 782) Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 145951 August 12, 2003 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (2ND DIV.), and JOSE S. RAMISCAL, JR., JULIAN ALZAGA, ATTY. MANUEL SATUITO, ELIZABETH LIANG and JESUS GARCIA, respondents. YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

Respondents Jose S. Ramiscal, Jr., Julian Alzaga, Manuel Satuito, Elizabeth Liang and Jesus Garcia were all charged with Malversation through Falsification of Public Documents before the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 25741. The Information alleged that respondents misappropriated and converted for their personal use the amount of P250,318,200.00 from the funds of the Armed Forces of the Philippines Retirement and Separation Benefits System (AFP-RSBS).1 On November 12, 1999, respondent Ramiscal filed with the Sandiganbayan an "Urgent Motion to Declare Nullity of Information and to Defer Issuance of Warrant of Arrest." 2 He argued, inter alia, that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the case because the AFP-RSBS is a private entity. The said Urgent Motion was later adopted by respondents Alzaga and Satuito. The Urgent Motion was denied by the Sandiganbayan in a Resolution promulgated on January 6, 2000.3Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration. In a Resolution issued on May 12, 2000, the Sandiganbayan sustained respondents' contention that the AFP-RSBS is a private entity. Hence, it reconsidered its earlier Resolution and ordered the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 25741. Upon denial of its Motion for Reconsideration, the prosecution filed the instant special civil action for certiorari anchored on the following grounds: I RESPONDENT COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN ISSUING THE RESOLUTION DATED MAY 9, 2000 INSOFAR AS IT DISMISSED THE CASE FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. II RESPONDENT COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN DENYING PROSECUTION'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DATED JUNE 1, 2000, SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DATED JULY 10, 2000 AND SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DATED MAY 12, 2000.4 Considering that the Resolution of the Sandiganbayan which dismissed Criminal Case No. 25741 was a final order which finally disposed of the case, the proper remedy therefrom is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.5 Section 1 of said Rule 45 explicitly provides: Filing of petition with Supreme Court. A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth. Moreover, Section 7 of Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended by Section 3 of Republic Act No. 7975, states: Form, Finality and Enforcement of Decisions.

xxx

xxx

xxx.

Decisions and final orders of the Sandiganbayan shall be appealable to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari raising pure questions of law in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Basic is the rule that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules may be availed of only where there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.6Certiorari cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal.7 The foregoing rule, however, may be relaxed where the issue raised is one purely of law, where public interest is involved, and in case of urgency. In such cases, certiorari is allowed notwithstanding the existence and availability of the remedy of appeal. Certiorari may also be availed of where an appeal would be slow, inadequate and insufficient.8 If the strict application of the Rules will tend to frustrate rather than promote justice, it is always within our power to suspend the rules, or except a particular case from its operation.9 We now come to the substantive issue of whether the AFP-RSBS is a governmentowned or controlled corporation or a private corporation and, corollarily, whether its funds are public or private. The Sandiganbayan based its ruling that the AFP-RSBS is a private entity on its findings that the Government does not provide counterpart contribution to the System; that the employees of the AFP-RSBS do not receive any salary from the Government and are not covered by the salary standardization law; that their remittances and contributions were made to the Social Security System and not to the Government Service Insurance System; and that the contribution to the System of the sum of P200,000,000.00 under Presidential Decree 361 can not be deemed as equity of the government in the System but rather, a donation or "seed money" which was never increased thereafter.10 Generally, factual findings of the Sandiganbayan are conclusive on us. This rule, however, admits of exceptions, such as where: (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise and conjectures; (2) the inference made is manifestly mistaken; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; and (5) the findings of fact of the Sandiganbayan are premised on a want of evidence and are contradicted by evidence on record. 11 The AFP-RSBS was created by Presidential Decree No. 361. Its purpose and functions are akin to those of the GSIS and the SSS, as in fact it is the system that manages the retirement and pension funds of those in the military service. Members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police are expressly excluded from the coverage of The GSIS Act of 1997.12 Therefore, soldiers and military personnel, who are incidentally employees of the Government, rely on the administration of the AFPRSBS for their retirement, pension and separation benefits. For this purpose, the law provides that the contribution by military officers and enlisted personnel to the System shall be compulsory, thus: Officers and enlisted personnel in the active service shall contribute to the System an amount equivalent to four per cent (4%) of their monthly base and longevity pay, which contribution shall be deducted from their pay from the Armed Forces of the Philippines

and paid to the System: Provided, however, That any officer or enlisted person who is due for compulsory retirement or is optionally retirable and actually elects to retire within one year from the approval of this Act, shall no longer be required to contribute to the System: Provided, further, That any officer or enlisted person who is separated through no fault of his own and is not eligible for either retirement or separation benefits shall upon his separation, be refunded in one lump sum all his actual contributions to the System plus interest at the rate of four per cent (4%).13 Its enabling law further mandates that the System shall be administered by the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines through an agency, group, committee or board, which may be created and organized by him and subject to such rules and regulations governing the same as he may, subject to the approval of the Secretary of National Defense, promulgate from time to time. Moreover, the investment of funds of the System shall be decided by the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines with the approval of the Secretary of National Defense.14 In connection with the Sandiganbayan's finding that the funds of the AFP-RSBS, except for the initial seed money, come entirely from contributions and that no part thereof come from appropriations, Section 2 of P.D. 361 states: SECTION 2. The System shall be funded as follows: (a) Appropriations and contributions; (b) Donations, gift, legacies, bequest and others to the System; (c) All earnings of the System which shall not be subject to any tax whatsoever. Indeed, the clear import of the above-quoted provision is that, while it may be true that there have been no appropriations for the contribution of funds to the AFP-RSBS, the Government is not precluded from later on adding to the funds in order to provide additional benefits to the men in uniform. The above considerations indicate that the character and operations of the AFP-RSBS are imbued with public interest. As such, we hold that the same is a government entity and its funds are in the nature of public funds. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition for certiorari is GRANTED. The assailed Resolution of the Sandiganbayan dated May 12, 2000 is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Criminal Case No. 25741 is ordered REINSTATED, and the Sandiganbayan is DIRECTED to resume proceedings thereon with dispatch. SO ORDERED. 7. Definition of government owned and controlled corporation ( people vs sandiganbayan 451 SCRA 413) Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION August 12, 2003

G.R. No. 145951

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (2ND DIV.), and JOSE S. RAMISCAL, JR., JULIAN ALZAGA, ATTY. MANUEL SATUITO, ELIZABETH LIANG and JESUS GARCIA, respondents. YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: Respondents Jose S. Ramiscal, Jr., Julian Alzaga, Manuel Satuito, Elizabeth Liang and Jesus Garcia were all charged with Malversation through Falsification of Public Documents before the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 25741. The Information alleged that respondents misappropriated and converted for their personal use the amount of P250,318,200.00 from the funds of the Armed Forces of the Philippines Retirement and Separation Benefits System (AFP-RSBS).1 On November 12, 1999, respondent Ramiscal filed with the Sandiganbayan an "Urgent Motion to Declare Nullity of Information and to Defer Issuance of Warrant of Arrest."2 He argued, inter alia, that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the case because the AFP-RSBS is a private entity. The said Urgent Motion was later adopted by respondents Alzaga and Satuito. The Urgent Motion was denied by the Sandiganbayan in a Resolution promulgated on January 6, 2000.3Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration. In a Resolution issued on May 12, 2000, the Sandiganbayan sustained respondents' contention that the AFP-RSBS is a private entity. Hence, it reconsidered its earlier Resolution and ordered the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 25741. Upon denial of its Motion for Reconsideration, the prosecution filed the instant special civil action for certiorari anchored on the following grounds: I RESPONDENT COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN ISSUING THE RESOLUTION DATED MAY 9, 2000 INSOFAR AS IT DISMISSED THE CASE FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. II RESPONDENT COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN DENYING PROSECUTION'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DATED JUNE 1, 2000, SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DATED JULY 10, 2000 AND SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DATED MAY 12, 2000.4 Considering that the Resolution of the Sandiganbayan which dismissed Criminal Case No. 25741 was a final order which finally disposed of the case, the proper remedy therefrom is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.5 Section 1 of said Rule 45 explicitly provides: Filing of petition with Supreme Court. A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.

Moreover, Section 7 of Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended by Section 3 of Republic Act No. 7975, states: Form, Finality and Enforcement of Decisions. xxx xxx xxx. Decisions and final orders of the Sandiganbayan shall be appealable to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari raising pure questions of law in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Basic is the rule that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules may be availed of only where there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.6Certiorari cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal.7 The foregoing rule, however, may be relaxed where the issue raised is one purely of law, where public interest is involved, and in case of urgency. In such cases, certiorari is allowed notwithstanding the existence and availability of the remedy of appeal. Certiorari may also be availed of where an appeal would be slow, inadequate and insufficient.8 If the strict application of the Rules will tend to frustrate rather than promote justice, it is always within our power to suspend the rules, or except a particular case from its operation.9 We now come to the substantive issue of whether the AFP-RSBS is a governmentowned or controlled corporation or a private corporation and, corollarily, whether its funds are public or private. The Sandiganbayan based its ruling that the AFP-RSBS is a private entity on its findings that the Government does not provide counterpart contribution to the System; that the employees of the AFP-RSBS do not receive any salary from the Government and are not covered by the salary standardization law; that their remittances and contributions were made to the Social Security System and not to the Government Service Insurance System; and that the contribution to the System of the sum of P200,000,000.00 under Presidential Decree 361 can not be deemed as equity of the government in the System but rather, a donation or "seed money" which was never increased thereafter.10 Generally, factual findings of the Sandiganbayan are conclusive on us. This rule, however, admits of exceptions, such as where: (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise and conjectures; (2) the inference made is manifestly mistaken; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; and (5) the findings of fact of the Sandiganbayan are premised on a want of evidence and are contradicted by evidence on record.11 The AFP-RSBS was created by Presidential Decree No. 361. Its purpose and functions are akin to those of the GSIS and the SSS, as in fact it is the system that manages the retirement and pension funds of those in the military service. Members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police are expressly excluded from the coverage of The GSIS Act of 1997.12 Therefore, soldiers and military personnel, who are incidentally employees of the Government, rely on the administration of the AFPRSBS for their retirement, pension and separation benefits. For this purpose, the law provides that the contribution by military officers and enlisted personnel to the System shall be compulsory, thus:

Officers and enlisted personnel in the active service shall contribute to the System an amount equivalent to four per cent (4%) of their monthly base and longevity pay, which contribution shall be deducted from their pay from the Armed Forces of the Philippines and paid to the System: Provided, however, That any officer or enlisted person who is due for compulsory retirement or is optionally retirable and actually elects to retire within one year from the approval of this Act, shall no longer be required to contribute to the System: Provided, further, That any officer or enlisted person who is separated through no fault of his own and is not eligible for either retirement or separation benefits shall upon his separation, be refunded in one lump sum all his actual contributions to the System plus interest at the rate of four per cent (4%).13 Its enabling law further mandates that the System shall be administered by the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines through an agency, group, committee or board, which may be created and organized by him and subject to such rules and regulations governing the same as he may, subject to the approval of the Secretary of National Defense, promulgate from time to time. Moreover, the investment of funds of the System shall be decided by the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines with the approval of the Secretary of National Defense.14 In connection with the Sandiganbayan's finding that the funds of the AFP-RSBS, except for the initial seed money, come entirely from contributions and that no part thereof come from appropriations, Section 2 of P.D. 361 states: SECTION 2. The System shall be funded as follows: (a) Appropriations and contributions; (b) Donations, gift, legacies, bequest and others to the System; (c) All earnings of the System which shall not be subject to any tax whatsoever. Indeed, the clear import of the above-quoted provision is that, while it may be true that there have been no appropriations for the contribution of funds to the AFP-RSBS, the Government is not precluded from later on adding to the funds in order to provide additional benefits to the men in uniform. The above considerations indicate that the character and operations of the AFP-RSBS are imbued with public interest. As such, we hold that the same is a government entity and its funds are in the nature of public funds. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition for certiorari is GRANTED. The assailed Resolution of the Sandiganbayan dated May 12, 2000 is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Criminal Case No. 25741 is ordered REINSTATED, and the Sandiganbayan is DIRECTED to resume proceedings thereon with dispatch. SO ORDERED. 8. Administrative relationship Unless otherwise expressly stated in the Code or in other laws defining the special relationships of particular agencies, administrative relationships shall be categorized and defined as follows: A. Supervision and control

Supervision and control shall include authority to act directly whenever a specific function is entrusted by law or regulation to a subordinate; direct the performance of duty; restrain the commission of acts; review, approve, reverse or modify acts and decisions of subordinate officials or units; determine priorities in the execution of plans and programs; and prescribe standards, guidelines, plans and programs. Unless a different meaning is explicitly provided in the specific law governing the relationship of particular agencies, the word control shall encompass supervision and control as defined in this paragraph. B. Administrative supervision Administrative supervision which shall govern the administrative relationship between a department or its equivalent and regulatory agencies or other agencies as may be provided by law, shall be limited to the authority of the department or its equivalent to generally oversee the operations of such agencies and to insure that they are managed effectively, efficiently and economically but without interference with day-to-day activities; or require the submission of reports and cause the conduct of management audit, performance evaluation and inspection to determine compliance with policies, standards and guidelines of the department; to take such action as may be necessary for the proper performance of official functions, including rectification of violations, abuses and other forms of maladministration; and to review and pass upon budget proposals of such agencies but may not increase or add to them. C. Attachment ( beja vs court of appeals, 207 SCRA 689) 9. Nature of administrative agency Administrative agency is an indefinite and generic term and covers boards, commission, departments and divisions and somewhat less familiar designations of office and authority. It may even cover a single officer. Used to describe an agency exercising some significant combinations of executive, legislative, and judicial powers. Some assert that administrative is the 4th power of govt. Viewed from the standpoint of any particular act of the agency: It is either executive or in the narrowest sense administrative, or legislative, or judicial, or To distinguish it from organs which are purely or essentially legislative or judicial, quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial. Some partake of the nature of public agencies acting in the public interests, and their jurisdiction is dependent upon the existence of a public interest, since they are not tribunals for the enforcement of private rights. Mere fact that a statute setting up a commission, does not itself render the commission a court even if: The rules of procedure adopted by such commission provide a mode of procedure

conforming in many respects to the regular practice of the court, or the commission possess or exercises powers and functions resembling those exercised by the courts. Other natures of Administrative agencies Some are deemed to be agents of the legislative branch of the government and not of the executive branch. Some on the other hand are deemed as agents of the executive, or described as executive or administrative agencies. Some are bodies corporate with legal capacity to sue and be sued in the courts and were held to constitute legal entities with perpetual existence apart from their members. Others are without independent existence but are merely regarded as instrumentalities of the government or political divisions thereof.

10. Creation and abolition of administrative agency 1. Constitutional Provisions e.g. : CSC, COMELEC, COA 2. Legislature in legislative enactments e.g. : Bureau of Customs, BIR, NLTC, PRC, Court of Agrarian Relations, Phil. Patent Office, SEC, Board of Transportation, Social Security Commission, BSP, National Grains Authority 3. Authority of law Under various government reorganization acts, the President and the Government Survey and Reorganization Commission had been authorized and had in fact created administrative offices and agencies in the course of the reorganization of the executive branch of the government. Experimentation is frequent in the field of administration, and particular admin agencies are sometimes: Abolished and new ones created embodying the fruits of experience; Reorganized or their functions transferred to other agencies.

Congress has at various times vested powers in the President to reorganize executive agencies and redistribute functions and the transfers made under such are held by the SC to be within the authority of President. Any doubt as to the authority granted to the President and the due exercise thereof, is determined by congressional approval and ratification in subsequently recognizing the validity of the transfer by making appropriations for the purpose of carrying out the transferred function. Constitutionally created admin agencies cannot be abolished by statute, while admin agencies created by statute or through the authority of a statute may be validly abolished and reorganized by the legislature.

11. Presidents power of control and supervision over administrative agencies Legislative power over admin agencies is very broad, it is the legislative branch that: Promulgates the general policy Creates the agency to administer it if none is already in existence for the purpose Prescribes the mode of appointment, the term of office and compensation; Fixes its authority and procedure; Determines the size of its personnel and staff; Exercises continuing surveillance over its activities; May investigate its operations for remedial or corrective legislation Legislature is more and more in favor of enacting statutes in broad and general wording and leaving details thereof to administrative agencies to fill by rules, orders, regulations and the like.

1. Distinction between power and function 2. Powers of administrativr agencies ( laguna lake development authority vs. Court of appeals, 231 SCRA 292) ( Azarcon vs. Sandiganbayan, 268 SCRA 747) ( makati stock exchange inc. Vs securities and exchange commission 16 SCRA 623) 3. Classification of administrative powers

4. Scope and extent of investigatory powers of administrative agencies ( secretary of justice vs lantion, 322 SCRA 160) ( gairon vs. Alcala, 444 scra 428) - importance of administrative investigations - distinction of investigatory powers of administrative agencies from judicial functions - right to counsel in administrative investigations ( remolona vs civil service commission, 362 SCRA 304)